Turkish President Erdogan is due to its policy towards the Kurds heavy criticism. But the indignation about Turkey is self-righteous and untrustworthy.

At last we know who is worse than the “Islamic State” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Relentlessly he refuses to stand the Kurdish freedom fighters in Kobane to the side and thus proves to be cynical mate the IS-barbarians. Instead the Turkish border for Kurdish fighters to open, he can take his Air Force PKK positions under fire. Obviously, so said the Chancellor, Erdogan had his priorities mixed up.

Foreign Minister Cavusoglu announced on Monday to try to allow Kurdish Peshmerga fighters from northern Iraq to Turkey after crossing Kobane, but details are still unclear. A corridor for Syrian-Kurdish troops from Turkey rejects further.

The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy is in an article for the “Libération” even further than the Chancellor: Kobane was “not only a symbol, but also the key” to the Middle East. The city is “Guernica”, “Coventry” and – yes – “Stalingrad” in one. Given this epochal importance of the city has also the consequence of the “inexcusable failure” assume historical proportions – Levy is: For those of Turkey is no more room in NATO.

It must be nice, the world is so easy to divide into good and evil. But the moral condemnation of the assumed Turkish doing nothing is not only self-righteous, but at best partly justified. Sure, Turkey is accusing the ambivalence of their IS policy. Although she has never supported the holy warriors with weapons, but it has long watched as IS-jihadists crossed the Turkish border. Against the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad apparently every means seemed right.

But ignore the critics that a significant aspect of these jihadists had to first cross the borders of their European countries of origin – and possibly with the connivance of the authorities.

But just one looking away is Turkey not to blame – other than the now so indignant occurring western states. From autumn 2011 to Erdogan has condemned the Assad regime. When Western foreign minister still remained in perplexity, it was Turkey, the no-fly zones, humanitarian corridors and protected zones for civilians demanded – as we know unsuccessfully. Because no one in the West would not hear of anything.

Syrian opposition exists because of Ankara

Of course: Erdogan’s position was and is anything but selfless. The first protest slogans in Syrian cities were hardly dried, as Ankara has promoted the rise of the opposition. This seemed to fit into the geostrategic concept of Turkey. The result: Even today there is a formally organized Syrian opposition only because Turkey has the bundling of anti-Assad forces. The Syrian National Coalition finally meets no accident in Istanbul. These are not Syrian puppet of Ankara’s grace, but the opposition forces, which feel obliged to the Western States.

Also as far as humanitarian aid, Turkey has never weggeduckt. On the contrary: according to UN agency UNHCR, the number of civil war refugees in Turkey has long since exceeded the million mark far. Who knows the haggling Western States concerning the taking of refugees, can not seriously speak of a failure of Turkey here.

But Ankara is not actually denied an easily possible assistance in Kobane and elsewhere? As the Western governments should be careful. Sure, it may seem convenient for them, if Turkey was now transformed into a kind of Middle Eastern Northern Alliance. As in 2001, in Afghanistan it could be the ground troops, the “Boots on the Ground”, make that seem necessary to stop the IS halt. But in a time when Western countries exclude even a UN-mandated use of its own forces, a moral outcry is limited credibility.

Criticism of the Turkish foreign policy:Ankara and Washington are still arguing

Military action Ankara denied on the other hand did not categorically. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has repeatedly made ​​clear that Turkey “is ready for anything, unless there is a clear strategy is based”. Concretely, this means the demand for a no-fly zone in northern Syria and a commitment to peace in the region without Assad. Apparently, this is now the main point of contention, the Ankara and Washington separates.

The rule is: The Turkish demands may criticize, who has made his peace with the fact Syrian dictator. But the formulation of clear interests and strategic objectives should not complain to the Turkish president.

The history of military interventions teaches one thing: They are easy to start but hard to end. The Turkish President is therefore much to blame, but not the refusal to plunge headlong into a Syrian adventure, from which the West holds out deliberately.

[adrotate group=”7″]